Author
Topic: The Political Thread (Read 899527 times)

I know we've been over this time and time again, sorry, but I think it's worth repeating. While the lefties and liberals were listening to Russell Brand on his non-voting soapbox a few years back, Cameron was sailing comfortably into number 10. So Russell Brand changed his mind.

He didn't really change his mind, he endorsed the Greens, which is as good as not voting B'DUM TISH.

You seem to be remembering things differently to me, as I recall the lefties and liberals hated and despised Brand in the same way they currently hate and despise Corbyn, right down to the sneering condescension as they retweeted skewed Guardian headlines and bat away any suggestion that they're still being led around by the nose.Two things worth remembering are (1) that Brand's Damascene conversion from being an unbearable knob to being an unbearable lefty knob has changed his natural audience from 20 and 30-something readers of The Sun to politically homeless youths, and if Brand had just browbeaten that audience into voting Labour because they were the lesser of two evils, it would have backfired just like it did for Hillary Clinton's cheerleaders, because (2) back when he was telling people not to bother voting, he was right: there wasn't clear water between the Tories and New Labour. I'm not even sure if Milliband had won that we'd have avoided Brexit, because if there's one thing his Labour party loved, it was meaningless but politically-suicidal populist gestures like that marble monument he spent 30 grand on.

the lefties and liberals hated and despised Brand in the same way they currently hate and despise Corbyn,

Do they despise Cornyn? I'm not casting doubt over what you say, I'm just curious. I thought a lot of them had got on board with Jezza since Theresa's ill-judged snap election. Obviously I'm in a different country so can't really judge the political climate properly.

Logged

“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest”

If anything, Corbyn fans are doubling down. I have a friend who's big into Corbyn, and who's convinced himself (although slightly less so of late) that he's playing the long game regarding the EU, and will eventually change his mind. "Just wait and see!" Yes, presumably that's why he's using a three-line-whip to stop his MPs voting on anything to do with pro-EU settlements/plans, erroneously stating you can't be in the single market unless you're in the EU, going on about the will of the people (2016 Forever Set In Amber™ edition), and so on.

No-one wants to admit the leadership is cynically courting the UKIP vote and making the gamble Labour will retain the borrowed votes (seven points or so from Lib Dems, and still one or two from Greens) and new ones (mostly young/students), even after a perceived (if not actual, going by the manifesto) betrayal on EU membership, or some kind of EEA fudge. But as people who've known Corbyn for years say, he never changes his mind on something, and his views about the EEC/EU are well known.

As for his supporters, I had someone yelling "fake news" at me about the "can't be in the single market" point, despite me sending a link to a YouTube clip with Corbyn actually saying that on Peston. (Others make a more nuanced argument that he's somehow stating you can't be in the single market, but can instead have a participation treaty. But no-one – including lawyers and EU scholars I follow – use that terminology. Norway is effectively in the single market. And if Corbyn is talking about a Norway-style deal, he should bloody well come out and say it. All this ambiguity is bullshit, and makes him no better than May.)

It's also interesting right now looking at Electoral Calculus, which is quite accurate in terms of seat count. If an election were held today and the predictions proved accurate (unlikely – Con its usually underestimated), Labour ends up 21 short of a majority (305 to Con 278). The only viable coalition/deal is Lab/SNP, although Labour has repeatedly ruled out all deals and basically 'dared' others to return us to a Tory government. (Again, people have a go at the Tories a lot, but they did at least go into coalition with the Lib Dems.)

If we make the assumption the polls are wrong (as they usually are), and swing each just two per cent, we end up roughly where we are now, with the Tories 12 seats short. However, make those votes I was talking about 'go home', and we see the Tories end up with a majority of ten, and Labour lose over 20 seats. (Lib Dems, on a mid-teens percentage, claw their way back to 22 seats – or 3% – again showcasing the absurdity of FPTP.)

A smart, pragmatic Labour Party would look at demographic shifts, and plan for a future of coalition/partnership with centrists and nationalists. But instead we have a small-minded bunch of far-left ideologues wanting to usher in a socialist paradise (while simultaneously not recognising that this won't be possible if there's no bloody money).

But instead we have a small-minded bunch of far-left ideologues wanting to usher in a socialist paradise (while simultaneously not recognising that this won't be possible if there's no bloody money).

I do wonder if this is a core part of the problem; the ideological extremism inherent in Labour just as in the Tory party. In some respects, Tony Blair got it right insofar as he recognised the limits in the socialist / marxist position. On the one hand you want to embrace the full potential of human ingenuity and innovation but on the other hand you want to recognise the impact that might have.

Technology has the potential to improve the human condition but individuals have to be able to respond to it appropriately. Some will exploit that for their own benefit, others for their own plus others. That is the challenge we face; to maximise the benefit across society whilst rewarding those making the greatest risk.

It's also interesting right now looking at Electoral Calculus, which is quite accurate in terms of seat count. If an election were held today and the predictions proved accurate (unlikely – Con its usually underestimated)

It's not so much that the estimates are out, it's that people lie in opinion polls and don't want to admit that they vote Tory - it's called the Shy Tory Syndrome...

Quote

(Again, people have a go at the Tories a lot, but they did at least go into coalition with the Lib Dems.)

Technically, yes - but wouldn't an actual coalition have involved them having an influence on policy, instead of just enabling them to carry out their own policies as if they'd had an actual majority? The DUP has more influence on current Tory decisions than the Libs ever did, even though the DUP isn't in a coalition with them.

LOL at the idea that Tony Blair wasn't an ideological extremist. I mean, you don't even have to roll out the corpses of 1 million dead Iraqis to dispute that one.

Quite the juggling act Corbyn is doing there, being both a hardline ideological extremist who never yields and yet also betraying the working classes by voting with the government. I don't know how he manages it on top of being unelectable by winning elections, and a bully who insists on getting things his way whilst simultaneously being too weak to lead.

I do wonder if this is a core part of the problem; the ideological extremism inherent in Labour just as in the Tory party.

WHO ARE THE HARD LEFT, TJM?I am curious what this ideological extremism is when even the IMF have endorsed the Shadow Chancellor's policy of taxing higher earners saying it won't harm economic growth. Meanwhile, the left in the party hasn't purged anyone - quite the opposite, the Labour right have been trying to gerrymander internal elections for two years and the left have still won things fair and square - and have even gone out and recruited Tory voters like Michelle Dorrell, who you may remember we all laughed at when she broke down in tears on QT.

Technically, yes - but wouldn't an actual coalition have involved them having an influence on policy

The Lib Dems had plenty of influence on policy. Most of the decent things that coalition did (and the shitty things it didn't do – but the Tories have done since) were down to the Lib Dems. The problem is, the Tories took the credit for everything that was received positively, and shovelled the shit for all the bad stuff on to the Lib Dems. It's also worth noting that party has shifted rightwards under Clegg too, so what you got was the more capitalist-oriented wing of the party outnumbered by the Tories 5:1 having some – but not massive – impact on policy.

Quote

DUP has more influence on current Tory decisions than the Libs ever did, even though the DUP isn't in a coalition with them.

One of the Lib Dem party's greatest errors was in not realising the power they had. They were naïve. The DUP really isn't. LDs should have strong-armed on a number of matters (not least, but including: Clegg should have been foreign secretary; no AV referendum – AV+ should have been put through in the Commons and three-line whipped; NHS bill should have been killed; no increase in student fees for the length of the coalition).

Quite the juggling act Corbyn is doing there, being both a hardline ideological extremist who never yields and yet also betraying the working classes by voting with the government.

He's an ideologue in the sense he's three-line-whipping the party to put through a position that he thinks will usher in his socialist utopia. He wants hard Brexit, but for a different reason than May and co. For now, that means doing the same as May.

Quote

I don't know how he manages it on top of being unelectable by winning elections

Only for the leadership. His party made a massive balls-up of the last general election. (Plenty of on-the-ground reports of them basically doing fuck-all in seats that turned out to be easily winnable.) Also, what the fuck in places like Richmond Park? Just get out of the fucking way, rather than offering hubris and letting another bloody Tory in.